A rare, but major victory for parental rights was won in the highest court in the state of Rhode Island, albeit the victory may only be temporary.

In the Ocean State and across America, state and federal courts have routinely ruled against families, citizens, and employees who, for religious, moral, or medical reasons have opted against receiving the Covid-19 vaccine. However, on Thursday the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued a temporary stay against a mother who sought to force her young daughters to be administered the Covid-19 vaccine regimen, despite the wishes of the children’s father not to have his daughters vaccinated.

The case, Lauren Nagel v. Joshua Nagel, was initially heard in the state’s Family Court, which ruled in favor of the mother, despite overwhelming evidence and testimony that young children receive virtually no benefit from the vaccine; a vaccine, which, as increasing research has demonstrated, is likely to produce more harm than benefit. The Family Court also appeared to ignore the legal settlement between the divorced parents, which included a clause that appears to favor the father’s position when it comes to making reasonable medical decisions about their children.

According to Dr. Andrew Bostom, a Brown University credentialed epidemiologist and frequent medical advisor to The Ocean State Current, “we eviscerated the ‘medical case’ in favor of vaccinating these healthy children with natural immunity from a previous SARSCOV2 infection, providing them more robust than vaccine-acquired immunity. The Family Court judge further agreed that the father’s unwillingness to agree to vaccinating these children was not unreasonable. Why the Family Court Judge chose to then rule against the father is itself unreasonable & we hope the Supreme Court strikes her decision down.”

After an emergency appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, on January 26, a single Justice granted a stay until the full five-member bench considered the temporary stay motion. On February 9, a majority of the Justices ruled to maintain the stay and send the case to a full trial. By granting the stay, the two daughters will not be forced to receive the vaccine while the case continues on in the coming months. Click here to read the official Order Lauren Nagel v. Joshua Nagel (SU-2023-30-MP)

According to sources, no opinion was cited by the Court as to why it granted the stay, with the matter to be “expedited.”

As evidence continues to mount worldwide documenting not only the ineffectiveness of the vaccine and the potential harm it can cause to young adults and children, but also that virtually all children have contracted Covid (whether they were aware of it or not) and that naturally acquired immunity provides them with substantial protections.

Because of national uniqueness of this kind of case advancing to a state appellate court (seeking to resolve disputes among parents about vaccines for their children) and surviving initial challenges to advancing to a full trial, it is anticipated that this trial will become a national showcase for both proponents and opponents of administering the Covid vaccine to young children.